Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Educational Research Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
American Educational Research Journal
Spring 1980, Vol. 17, No. 2, Pp. 141-152
STAN M. SHAPSON
Simon Fraser University
The study investigated the effects offour class sizes (16, 23, 30, and
37) on teachers'expectations; the attitudesand opinions ofparticipants
(studentsand teachers); student achievementin reading, mathematics,
composition,and art; student self-concept; and a variety of classroom
process variables (e.g., teacher-pupil interaction,pupil participation,
method of instruction).Teachersand students were randomly assigned
to a class size in Grades 4 and 5. A total of 62 classes in three school
districts in Metropolitan Torontoparticipated in the two-year study.
Findings indicated that teachers had definite expectations of class size
effects that subsequently were reported to be confirmed by their
experience in the study. However, most other resultsfailed to support
teachers' opinions. Few of the observed classroom process variables
were affected by class size. Although students' mathematics-concept
scores were higher in size 16 than 30 or 37, there were no class size
effectsfor the other achievementmeasures (reading, vocabulary,math-
ematics-problemsolving, art, and composition) or for students' atti-
tudes and self-concepts.
The issue of class size has long attracted the interest of the educational
community (Glass & Smith, 1979). The present study was conducted in the
province of Ontario where, in the early 1970's, educators were faced with
the problem of how best to cope with diminishing school enrollments and
ceilings on educational expenditures. In responding to these concerns, the
This research project was funded under contract by the Ministry of Education, Ontario.
141
SHAPSON, WRIGHT, EASON, AND FITZGERALD
142
EFFECTS OF CLASS SIZE
Instrumentation
The Toronto Classroom Observation Schedule (TCOS). The TCOS was
designed and field tested prior to the start of the study. Detailed information
on the development of the instrument and reliability data are presented in
Wright et al. (1977). The schedule includes a fixed, time-sample observation
system (to record teacher verbal behavior, pupil participation, and pupil
aggressive behavior); an observation checklist (method of instruction, subject
emphasis, use of educational aids, and physical conditions); and a Classroom
Atmosphere Rating scale. The following variables were investigated with
this schedule:
(1) Teacher-pupilinteraction-observations of three aspects of teachers'
verbal behavior: content (pupils' behavior, course content, or routine proce-
dures);function (approving, disapproving, or neutral; verbalizations about
course content were further classified as questioning or telling); audience
(addressed to an individual, a group, or the whole class);
(2) Pupil participation-the participation of randomly selected individual
pupils was classified as verbal or nonverbal. Verbal participation was further
classified as self-initiated or reactive, and according to audience (i.e., teacher,
peer, or self). A pupil could also be classified as off-task or as having no
assigned task;
(3) Pupil satisfaction-the frequency of all overt, disruptive, hostile acts
occurring within a fixed time period;
(4) Method of instruction-a ranking of the frequency of various methods
of instruction;
(5) Subject emphasis-a ranking of the subjects taught according to the
time spent on them;
(6) Physical conditions-checklist of classroom noise, furniture arrange-
ment, and educational aids;
(7) Use of educational aids-the proportion of pupils using audio-visual,
written, and mechanical or concrete aids; and
(8) Classroom atmosphere-rating scale of 45 Likert items representative
of classroom atmosphere (e.g., pupils' regard for the teacher).
Indicators of Quality. This observation instrument taps four categories of
143
SHAPSON, WRIGHT, EASON, AND FITZGERALD
Data Analysis
The analysis included data from 62 classes--16 each of class sizes 16 and
23, and 15 each of class sizes 30 and 37. In general, differences between class
sizes were assessed by a one-way analysis of variance with the class serving
as the unit of analysis. For the student outcome data, the variability due to
year of the study and teacher was first removed using a multiple linear
regression technique and an analysis of variance was performed using the
"residuals." For the observational data, means of each variable were first
144
EFFECTS OF CLASS SIZE
Management. Teachers of class size 16 felt that they were able to run their
classrooms more smoothly and efficiently and that their pupils showed
more responsibility in working on their own, handling supplies, and behav-
145
SHAPSON, WRIGHT, EASON, AND FITZGERALD
ing appropriately. In class size 37, it was reported that rules had to be
strictly enforced with restricted physical movement of pupils.
Physical Layout. Teachers of class size 16 were pleased with the amount of
room available, especially for centres and activities, and they reported that
pupils had a choice of where to work and were free to move around.
Teachers reported that their classrooms were crowded in size 37.
Evaluation.Teachers of class sizes 16 and 23 were pleased because marking
took little time and corrections were immediate. Some alternative methods
were mentioned such as interviews and pupil self-evaluation, and it was felt
that evaluation was more personal and extensive. In size 30, it was reported
that marking became more formal, time-consuming, and sometimes de-
layed. In size 37, marking and evaluation were viewed to be overwhelming,
teachers enlisted pupils for marking, and evaluation was based on tests or
specific projects, rather than on general teaching knowledge of pupils.
Teachers expressed dissatisfaction with this kind of evaluation.
146
EFFECTSOF CLASS SIZE
TABLE I
Mean Scores by Class Size
ClassSize
Variable F-ratio
16 23 30 37
Teachers' Semantic Differential
My Classroom (maximum = 126) 100.9 96.8 92.2 91.4 4.20*
Pupils I Teach (maximum = 147) 114.1 108.9 110.8 110.2 0.48
Observational Variables'
Proportion of pupils addressed as in- .43 .34 .30 .25 12.96*
dividuals
Lecture by teacher (maximum = 8) 4.19 4.69 3.13 3.80 4.06*
Supervision by teacher while pupils 1.94 2.44 3.60 1.92 3.38*
working (maximum = 8)
Proportion of written aids used .40 .48 .48 .41 4.50*
Student Affective Measures
Attitudes Toward School (maximum
= 30)
Unadjusted mean score 19.71 17.35 17.57 17.48
Residual mean score 0.29 0.11 0.11 -0.08 1.08
Semantic Differential (maximum =
15)
Unadjusted mean score 8.63 8.93 8.78 9.20
Residual mean score 0.03 0.18 0.26 0.06 0.73
Self-concept (maximum = 30)
Unadjusted mean score 20.16 20.34 20.21 20.25
Residual mean score 0.09 -0.08 0.13 -0.14 1.38
Student AchievementMeasures
Art (maximum = 10)
Unadjusted mean score 6.47 6.30 6.49 6.58
Residual mean score -0.07 0.01 -0.11 0.18 1.29
Composition (maximum = 5)
Unadjusted mean score 4.56 4.40 4.51 4.46
Residual mean score 0.14 0.02 -0.06 -0.11 0.88
Vocabulary
Unadjusted mean score 43.16 43.58 42.42 42.84
Residual mean score -0.00 0.04 0.03 -0.07 0.71
Reading
Unadjusted mean score 44.08 44.47 44.05 44.28
Residual mean score -0.00 -0.04 0.02 0.02 0.16
Mathematics-concepts
Unadjusted mean score 47.41 45.60 44.03 44.69
Residual mean score 0.15 0.00 -0.09 -0.07 4.11*
Mathematics-Problem Solving
Unadjusted mean score 51.17 49.33 48.20 48.82
Residual mean score 0.14 0.04 -0.09 -0.10 2.57
a
Because of the numerous observational variables that were investigated, data are presented
only for those variables in which significant differences between class sizes were detected. The
F-ratios are based on analyses of pseudovalues (Mosteller & Tukey, 1968). Critical F-value (.05
level)= 2.90.
*p < .05.
147
SHAPSON, WRIGHT, EASON, AND FITZGERALD
148
EFFECTS OF CLASS SIZE
recorded and the data were analyzed for three categories: reading, mathe-
matics, and all language arts subjects. The reading and mathematics variables
were counts of the number of times during the year each subject was reported
in each class. The third variable was the mean number of language arts
subjects reported during an observation. The results revealed no significant
class size effects for these variables.
Educational Resources. The variables investigated were the number of
audio-visual, written, and mechanical-concrete resources present in the
classroom as well as those actually used. There was no significant class size
effect for the presence of any of the above educational resources or for the
use of audio-visual or mechanical-concrete aids. However, written aids were
used more frequently in class sizes 23 and 30 than in size 16.
ClassroomAtmosphere.There was no significant effect of class size on the
classroom atmosphere rating scale.
Indicators of Quality. There were no significant effects of class size on the
Indicator of Quality scores.
DISCUSSION
Manipulating class sizes experimentally resulted in few changes in class-
room functioning in the fourth and fifth grades. Of all the dependent
variables examined in this study, the ones that tended to show differences
due to class size were teachers' opinions and attitudes. Teachers expected
the two smaller class sizes (16 and 23) to have many advantages over the
larger classes (30 and 37), especially in the amount of individualization
possible. After direct experience during the study, teachers felt that they did
149
SHAPSON, WRIGHT, EASON, AND FITZGERALD
make changes to adjust to the different class sizes. Even though these
perceptionsdo not receivemuchsupportfromthe observationaland student
outcome data, they must not be ignored; teachers do believe that their
experiencesin smallerclassesare better.
The observationof classroomprocessvariablesrevealedvery few effects
of class size. Class size did not affect the amount of time teachersspent
talking about course content or classroomroutines.Nor did it affect the
choice of audience for teachers' verbal interactions; that is, when they
changed class sizes, teachers did not alter the proportion of their time spent
interacting with the whole class, with groups, or with individual pupils.
It was found that individualpupils were addressedmore frequentlyby
teachersin the small classes. However,since there were no corresponding
differencesin the total amountof time the teachersspenttalkingto individ-
uals, it seems that pupils in the smaller class sizes had more individual
interactionswith their teacherssimply becausea constantamount of time
for individualinteractionswas being distributedamong fewerpupils.These
findings representchanges that generallywould be expected if class sizes
were reduced and teachers did not change their instructionalstyles or
teachingmethods.In fact, furtherobservationaldata indicatedvirtuallyno
changes in methods of instructionused by teachersin the differentclass
sizes.Previousstudiesalso have indicatedthatteachersgenerallydo not take
advantageof the opportunityaffordedby smallclassesto individualizetheir
instructionalprocedures(e.g., Danowski,1965)and thateven if thereis more
individualization,a considerableamount of instructionin small classes is
still massoriented(e.g., Pugh, 1965).
Standardizedmeasures of students' academic achievement showed a
significantclass size effect only for mathematics-concepts; studentsin class
size 16 had higher scores than their peers in class sizes 30 and 37. There
were no significant differences on measures of reading, vocabulary,or
mathematics-problem solving.An argumentthat performancein endeavors
such as art or compositionwould be more sensitiveto class size effectsthan
the morestandardizedachievementmeasureswas also not supported.There
were also no class size effects for students'attitudestowardschool and for
theirself-concepts.Finally,changingclasssize did not resultin any observed
differencesin pupils'participationin classroomtasks.
This study was includedin the meta-analysisof class size undertakenby
Glass & Smith(1979).They pointedout that the chanceof findinga positive
difference-student achievementresultsfavouringsmallerclasses-in com-
paringclass sizes between 15 and 40 could perhapsbe as low as 45 to 55
percentand that this does not necessarilyrepresentstatisticallysignificant
differences.In Glassand Smith'sanalysis,studentachievementmeasureson
variousinstructionalsubjectswere combinedand not examinedseparately.
This is not tenable unless the instructionalstyles for all subjectareas are
150
EFFECTSOF CLASS SIZE
consistent. For example, secondary analyses of the data from the present
study have indicated that the subject of instruction affects the classroom
behavior of teachers (FitzGerald, Wright, Eason, & Shapson, 1978). Math-
ematics was more likely than other subjects to be taught as a single lesson to
the entire class and reading was less likely to be taught as a single lesson to
the entire class. These findings are not related to class size. It is quite possible
to suggest that since students were generally grouped for reading, changing
the overall class size had no effect on this measure, whereas it did for
mathematics.
The range of class sizes included in Glass and Smith's analysis was wider
than in the present study, and in fact their most dramatic results were
obtained for class sizes which dropped below those included in this study
(i.e., below 16). Rather than suggesting that class size does not make any
difference, this study demonstrates that within a narrower range of class
sizes (i.e., 16 to 37), it makes a large difference to the teachers but little
difference to the students or to the instructional methods used.
It must be pointed out that there was no attempt to experimentally
manipulate instructional strategies for the different class sizes. Essentially,
this has been a study of "what happens" when class size is changed, but it
cannot be considered a study of "what can happen." The results suggest
that, in the future, emphasis could be placed on providing teachers with
training in specific instructional strategies most appropriate for different
class sizes. As well, rather than merely advocating reductions or increases in
class size, a more flexible policy could be adopted. For example, class size
could be appropriately altered in different situations by redistributing stu-
dents and time and by changing instructional techniques.
REFERENCES
BLISHEN, B. R. A socio-economic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review
of Sociology and Anthropology, 1967, 4(1), 41-53.
Canadian Tests of Basic Skills. Toronto: T. Nelson, 1968.
DANOWSKI,C. E. Individualization of instruction: A functional definition. IAR
Research Bulletin, 1965, 5(2), 1-8.
FITZGERALD, J., WRIGHT,E. N., EASON,G., & SHAPSON, S. M. The effects of subject
of instructionon the behaviourof teachers and pupils. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, 1978. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 151 323)
GAITSKELL,C., & HURWITZ, A. Children and their art: Methodsfor the elementary
school (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1970.
GLASS,G., & SMITH,M. Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1979, 1(1), 2-16.
MOSTELLER, F., & TUKEY,J. Data analysis, including statistics. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
151
SHAPSON, WRIGHT, EASON, AND FITZGERALD
OLSON,M. Classroom variables that predict school system quality. IAR Research
Bulletin, 1970, 11(1), 1-11.
PUGH,J. B. Performance of teachers and pupils in small classes. New York: Institute
of Administrative Research, Columbia University, 1965.
SHAPSON,S. Optimum class size? A review of the literature. Toronto: The Board of
Education for the City of Toronto, Research Department, 1972 (#114). (Reprinted
in Ontario Education, 1973, 5, 18-24.)
SHAPSON, S., VIRGIN, A. E., & CRAWFORD, P. Development of an instrument to
measure self-concept in schools. Toronto: Board of Education for the Borough of
North York, Educational Research Services, October 1971.
VINCENT, W., & OLSON,M. Measurement of school quality and its determiners.New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1972.
WRIGHT,E. N., & REICH,C. Language: A study offundamental skills. Toronto: Board
of Education for the City of Toronto, Research Department, 1972 (#108).
WRIGHT, E. N., SHAPSON,S. M., EASON, G., & FITZGERALD,J. Effects of class size
in thejunior grades: A study. Toronto: Ministry of Education, 1977.
AUTHORS
STANLEY M. SHAPSON, Associate Professor, Directoral Professional
Programs, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Buraby,
British Columbia, Canada. Specializations: Program Evaluation and Cog-
nitive Psychology.
EDGAR N. WRIGHT, Director of Research, Research Department, To-
ronto Board of Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Specializations:
Research Methodology, School Evaluation.
GARY EASON, Research Assistant, Research Department, Toronto Board
of Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Specializations: Psychology.
JOHN FITZGERALD, Research Assistant, Research Department, Toronto
Board of Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Specializations: Psychol-
ogy.
152